ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Deep learning model for body weight estimation from computed tomography scout images incorporating sex and height.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automated scout-image-based estimation of contrast agent dosing: a deep learning approach.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate body weight measurement is essential for determining the appropriate dose of contrast agent in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examinations. However, in emergency medicine, obtaining accurate measurements is often challenging, which can lead to over- or underdosing of contrast medium. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate a deep learning model that estimates body weight using chest-abdominal CT scout images, sex, and height. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 763 hospitalized patients whose CT examination dates matched their weight-measurement dates. This dataset included patients with arms positioned alongside the body and those with metallic implants, commonly encountered in emergency medicine. After performing five-fold cross-validation, a deep learning model based on transfer learning with VGG16 was constructed. The following four input combinations were evaluated: (1) scout images alone; (2) scout images with sex; (3) scout images with height; and (4) scout images with sex and height. The percentages of cases with differences between predicted and actual body weights within ± 5 kg were 84.3%, 90.2%, 92.8%, and 90.2% for inputs (1)-(4), respectively. The corresponding mean absolute percentage errors were 4.8%, 4.7%, 4.1%, and 4.0%, respectively. Our method provides a useful tool for estimating body weight in patients of unknown weight, with its accuracy appearing largely unaffected even when the patients had arms positioned alongside the body or possessed metallic implants. Moreover, incorporating sex and height into the scout images further improved the prediction accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41739392What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.